Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
In order to add an image to a discussion, you need to first have a url to the image. This means that you have to upload the image to somewhere on the internet.
One easy way to do this is to use www. www.postimage.com.
You need to upload your image (remember anyone can see the image by reading a posting here, or other methods). After you upload the image you need to copy the 'html' line and paste it into a discussion comment.
Here is the format of an image in html. (only needed if you do not use postimage.org)
<img src="http://site.com/pictlink.jpg"/>
This forum does not use BBCode - rather it uses html.
--Tom
You can add a link to a posting: Copy the template below, and replace xxx with the URL, and yyy with what you want to call it (which can be the same as the URL).
<a href="xxx">yyy</a>
--Tom
Ironic's community site has been set up for support and discussion. Please feel free to join and offer your ideas and solutions. Anyone can add a comment or question to a discussion topic that is already listed. In order to start a new discussion, you need to be member. Membership is easy.
Ok, given that, let's move on. Text in contents is one level. Text in Spotlight Comments is a higher level. This tells us things more important than the things in the text. For example, the text "beach" in Spotlight Comments is more important than the text "beach" in the contents of a file. Why? Because there could be hundreds of files with the word "beach" in which "beach" is not an integral part of the file. But, a file with "beach" in the Spotlight Comments tells us that "beach" is integral to the file.
Surely, you meant "you can add TEXT" and not data; since tags are data, you seem to advocate getting rid of tags!!This is another circular argument. Tags are data?! Of course they are… so are comments. So is my phone number in the phone book. And where am I advocate getting rid of tags? You are the one with the disdain for tags in favor of what you call Comments (though they are also functionally tags when used singly in the Spotlights Comment field!)
because the very name of the field tells you it's purpose.That makes no sense! According to your argument College Ruled paper is unusable by high school students!
As opposed to the terrible inefficiencies of an overwhelming, out-of-control list of tags?or out of control filenaming conventions?
Or, navigating to Leap, finding the file, then right-clicking the file, finding the tag to use in the list, and adding it?Wow! I think you need to spend a lot more time with Leap if this is what you're doing!
And, what would you lose by eliminating the "@" or the "&" in the majority of your "tags" and leaving them as comments? You'd lose nothing and gain efficiency.This is patently untrue! Unless you have 1000s's of documents with "@photo" in its Contents then using the prefix is a fairly decent solution to avoiding a contents based result. Unless you think getting false positives is efficient.
You have to right-click and select tag, right-click and select tag, right-click and select tag, etc. for as many tags as you want to add. How is that any more efficient than right-clicking once and selecting Get Finder Info and typing prepended and non-prepended text all at once? Plus the added benefit of cleaning up that overbearing list of tags everyone has.This is not the best (or only) way to tag in Leap (there are several). And you still have not made a logical argument for, as you call it, "preprended text" versus "non-prepended text". I have been rereading earlier comments on both sides and I still don't see the advantage of your "non-prepended text".
[Jim] Boy I haven't had fun like this since sjk came on board and we went back and forth about hierarchical filing systems! 8^)
[Matt] And, sometimes when I push hard, people misunderstand me.
[Matt] You have to right-click and select tag, right-click and select tag, right-click and select tag, etc. for as many tags as you want to add.
It's too bad resource forks are deprecated in OS X....
Actually, what's really too bad is that we ended up with NEXTStep instead of BeOS as a basis for OS X.
In BeOS, arbitrary arrays of meta-data can be associated with files or file types and stored as "attributes." These attributes can be sifted and sorted through in the Tracker, or queried for through the Find panel. Because attributes are indexed automatically, search results are instantaneous, regardless the amount of data to be searched. In essence, the file system itself serves as a database.
They really "got" the whole metadata thing, and they didn't just integrate it into the operating system, they made it the cornerstone.